Saturday, December 11, 2010

"Getting hurt in a car accident is painful enough, but if firefighters have to respond, expect more pain — in your wallet.

Starting next summer, the city plans to bill drivers in accidents that require an emergency response.

The so-called “crash tax” works like this: A car fire or accident with injury would cost you $490. A car fire without injury, $415. And any vehicle accident without injury will run you $365."

Worse yet, the department will charge you even if the accident wasn't your fault.

"The FDNY says: “We want to relieve pressure on the taxpayer and place it on those at fault and their insurance. Right now if you’re at fault at an accident or a vehicle fire, you get a free ride. And that should not be borne by the taxpayers.”

Wait, hold on, so I should get government approved healthcare, but if my life is in jeopardy it is asking too much to have a "free ride" from a group of men who are paid to save my life in the first place?! If I was receiving a tax deduction and merely had to pay every time I use a service, I would understand and encourage this new practice. However, I was under the impression that my taxes contributed to the preservation of my life in an emergency. In other words, is it fair to bill people twice for the same services?

8 comments:

If you are a NYC taxpayer I'd say you deserved either a pass or a discounted rate. But emergency responders don't know where a victim pays taxes while en route to a "scene", and so must provide a standard level of service when they arrive. But whatever they do in response to the call costs extra money. So I can understand the necessity of setting up some type of recompense system.

I once was board member for a volunteer ambulance service, and went through many iterations of determining an equitable method of charging members and non-members differing but fair rates for our services.

Fyi, you might be surprised at how many multiple-repeat customers there are out there, too. A fee charge system also seems to have an impact discouraging that issue. Don't know why.

I feel maybe, the unions and cities are looking for creative ways to fund future pay hikes and benefits. Quick thinking at that.

I guess they haven't looked thoroughly at the statistics to see how may of these accidents are caused by uninsured, unlicensed, illegals = no insurance money. BUT maybe the tax is only for the insured, licensed and legal. That seems fair to me.

1. 49erDweet said...Fyi, you might be surprised at how many multiple-repeat customers there are out there, too. A fee charge system also seems to have an impact discouraging that issue. Don't know why.

Point taken, but perhaps it can be addressed by setting a maximum number of free responses and charging beyond that. Doesn't AAA do something similar? Isn't that what telephone companies do for calls to Information?

2. Stop shouting... said...This policy was just implemented this in our area of VA. I agree with it wholeheartedly -- it is in response to a certain group that thinks it's ok to call 9-11 for a hangnail.

Once upon a time calls to Information were free with no quota. My military roommate in the late 1960s felt it beneath him to pick up the phone book. He called 411 every time he ordered a pizza or made a reservation. Sheesh. I wasn't surprised to learn that he became a classic yuppie after he got out.

Contributors

These Are Only MY Opinions

In case you were wondering, all opinions and views expressed on this blog are my own, and do not represent the views of any employer or other organization.

Terms of Use

By using this blog, you agree that all original content on this blog is copyright of William A. Jacobson. You may quote from my posts provided that you clearly identify me as the author, link to the original post or home address of this blog, and do not charge for access to the website, publication or other media in which the quote appears. Although comments are moderated, I accept no responsibility for what other people say, and I reserve the right to block or remove any comment for any reason or no reason. Any e-mails sent to me are subject to publication, and any disputes regarding this site will be litigated exclusively in the jurisidiction in which I reside at the time of the dispute.